On 2023-Mar-29, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 3:39 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> > > So I'm back home and found a couple more weird errors in the log:
> >
> > > ERROR: mismatching PartitionPruneInfo found at part_prune_index 0
> > > DETALLE: plan node relids (b 1), pruneinfo relids (b 36)
> >
> > This one reproduces for me.
>
> I've looked into this one and the attached patch fixes it for me.
> Turns out set_plan_refs()'s idea of when the entries from
> PlannerInfo.partPruneInfos are transferred into
> PlannerGlobal.partPruneInfo was wrong.
Thanks for the patch. I've pushed it to github for CI testing, and if
there are no problems I'll put it in.
> Though, I wonder if we need to keep ec386948948 that introduced the
> notion of part_prune_index around if the project that needed it [1]
> has moved on to an entirely different approach altogether, one that
> doesn't require hacking up the pruning code.
Hmm, that's indeed tempting.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/